Pope Francis, Another Zealot?

Take a good hard look into the life of new pope. To give an overview he thinks that:

Homosexuality is still a sin. He tells people to respect homosexuals, but whent the Argintinian government is going to make sam-sex marriage legal he says, "Let's not be naive, we're not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God."

During his early life he gave up all his fancy posetions (personal cook, facy place to live, chauffeured limo) and made a pledge of poverty. This sounds awefully noble right? Wrong, look at why he had those things to start out with (because he was a cardinal). Think about what the Bible verson of Jesus would have done. He probably wouldn't have even considered giving those things out to preachers of his word anyway. So denying riches should be something that cardinals and popes HAVE to do an shouldn't be praised for. By the way, the pledge of poverty meant that he just had to live like everyone else in the community (what a saint -- sarcasm)

Lastly, there was a criminal complaint filed against him by a human rights lawyer for the abduction of two Jesuit priests. However, there was no evidence to prove that he had anything to do with it. :)

I can't speak for Doc Bob, Mike, but since we don't know if he's coming back, I can at least respond to one of those, and he can add to it or correct me if he chooses, the matter of the "virgin birth."

Christianity, as we know it, in the first century CE, was matter of "majority rules" - there was a group who believed that Yeshua was born naturally, of the union of Joseph and a non-virgin Mary, and that he didn't become the "Christ," or the anointed one, until his baptism. The surviving translation was, "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased" but other translations that didn't survive, included, "This is my beloved son, whom I have begotten this day." These were known as "adoptionists," and they believed god adopted Yeshua because of the sinless life he had lived, but because they were in the minority, their writings were destroyed by those in the majority. The only way we know of them, is through the writings of others of the time, stating the beliefs of the adoptionists and cautioning early Christians not to believe them.

Constantine ordered the Council of Nicea convened in Constantinople (now, it's Istanbul, not Constantinople, so you can't go back to Constantinople, cause it's Istanbul, not Constantinople - why did Constantinople get the works? That's nobody's business but the Turks) - sorry, I went away for awhile, but I'm back now - at which time it was decided that Jesus was god and god was Jesus, and they both were the holy spirit, but the virgin/not-virgin, mortal/divine thing happened much earlier, and was settled by the time of the Nicean Council.

Yeah see Strega your argument would be better if you didn't mention homosexuals because talking about homosexuals is like anti-climate change science. In this micro-ecology you got going on here it's always like anti-climate-changers. And what about all the homosexuals in secular organizations? Also, anti-climate change.

I am genuinely interested in what the mental process might be in ignoring these BASIC questions. Do the theists subconsciously just slam the door? "Don't want to go there." "Must have FAITH". As a man of science he MUST realize that he has no logical or rational foundations for his beliefs. He will have no option but to retreat into the ethereal - "What is YOUR definition of "God"?" "There are other dimensions into which we, as mere humans, cannot delve".

And, of course, there is no point in asking him to describe his mental processes - or is there? . . . .